response 207 of 236:

Sep 8 05:55 UTC 2000

Yes, you have the freedom to attempt to turn every argument about religious
freedom, religious history, or anything else that mentions religion, into an
argument about whether theistic religions are wrong.  Likewise, I have the
right to tell you that, while I agree with you to a point, the arguments
you're making have nothing to do with the discussion the other participants
are trying to have.

So, for purposes of this discussion, would you agree that you and the Diag
preachers have an equal right to stand in front of the Grad Library,
explaining your view of the existence or lack thereof of God to anybody who
will listen, but that neither of you has any more right to be there preaching
than the other?

response 209 of 236:

Sep 8 08:32 UTC 2000

There was a time in this country when The Constition and The Bill of
Rights defined what little The State could do.  It used to be that the
'interpretation' was that the rights of the state were delegated to it
by The People and anything that was not specifically delegated was the
inherent and inalienable right of the citizen.  How far we have come
away from that.  We are now very much like the PRC where The State
grants to the citizens what little they can have and do. 

In the current presidential campaign the two 'real' candidates debate
about what small or smaller portion of the 'tax' ought to be given
back as a 'spending' program to the very citizens that currently pay
said 'tax' in what was originally supposed to only be 'temporary'
measure during 'war'.  "Don't worry, I'll only stick it in a little,
and if it hurts I'll pull it right back out".  Right up there with
"Yeah, it is totally IBMPC compatible - or in the current 'Windoze
compatible'..."  Or the "No, I won't cum in your mouth".  Its a 'fair
share' tax in that those that make more not only pay more (as a
percentage) but those successful citizens pay and even larger amount on
account the 'percentage' is higher the more they make.  Its ironic that
the 'vig' on a loanshark mobster loan is more fair in that it is a
constant across the board.

One of the major reasons for the downfall of the USSR was very simple.
Somewhere along the way, the poles simply stopped working.  They 'woke
up an smelled the coffee'.  Well, the 'proles' in the USSA are starting
to wake up.  Once the most 'tax abiding' nation on earth citizens of the
USSA are starting to realize that something is 'rotten in the state'.
More and more 'democrats' are paying 'off the books' for services such 
as 'lawnboys' and 'daycare'.  Even the most publically 'doctrinaire'
democrat are paying 'off the books'.  Imagine whats gonna happen when
anonymous digital 'cash' starts to circulate - untracable and inherently
therefore untaxable...That is the real reason the USSA is so opposed to
private cryptological systems.  They aren't worried about the criminals,
they are worried that the common ordinary 'citizens' - who they regard
as a 'necessary evil' - will start to actually 'consort' with one
another directly without the 'benefit' of the state.  They worry that
at some point the 'proles' will 'wake up and smell the coffee' and
ask why exactly it is they are working for no personal benefit for 1/4
of the year and increasing....

response 211 of 236:

Sep 8 13:00 UTC 2000

Richard, are you going to enter a proposal in coop outlawing drift?

response 213 of 236:

Sep 8 13:13 UTC 2000

<pokes MoonKittyCat>  (seen any movies lately???????)

response 215 of 236:

Sep 8 13:42 UTC 2000

hmm... movies I've seen lately...

Big Trouble in Little China was viewed the other night with Deb and 
That Guy, was most amusing- as always.

Other than that the other movie I've seen at all recently is 'The Big 
Chil,' a wonderful movie.

response 217 of 236:

Sep 8 16:29 UTC 2000

Rew #214: all movies are fictional, except for some documentaries. Is
The Ten Commandments a documentary? Has a god finally shown up for an
interview?

response 219 of 236:

Sep 8 21:18 UTC 2000

Re #217:
    Jesus was supposed to show up some time this year, according to some of
the lore...

response 221 of 236:

Sep 16 13:50 UTC 2000

(How could I have forgotten to mention the cave-dwelling mutants or the
sadistic prison guard?)

response 223 of 236:

Sep 16 22:34 UTC 2000

kate is russell's step-daughter.  i believe her dad is bill hudson, but i
could be wrong about his first name.

response 225 of 236:

Sep 17 14:40 UTC 2000

actually, i misspoke - kurt russell and goldie hawn aren't married so kurt
is not actually her step-father, but given the long term relationship with
kate's mother, he might as well be.

response 227 of 236:

Sep 18 01:08 UTC 2000

Common law marriage varries from state to state.  Many states base it on
whether a couple is claiming to be married (referring to eachother as "my
husband," or "my wife," and so forth) regardless of the amount of time
involved.  Michigan courts don't recognize common law marriages at all, saying
that if the legislature had wanted to consider people who hadn't had a wedding
to be married, they would have done so.

You can find some information about this at www.icle.org.

response 229 of 236:

Sep 19 02:17 UTC 2000

  It seems pretty reasonable to me.  From the point of view of the law,
  marriage is a property relationship between two people with substantial
  implications.  Whether or not the state considers you married (in a
  real property sense) isn't necessarily related to whether you, your
  friends and family, or your co-religionists recognize a valid "marriage"
  in whatever sense that may apply.